The Sun. — London, England, 1818-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. , . COUPT OF cr.. ANCERY, lAN' 1. No 'case of any particular interest took place to-d.-ty in this C-urt. PriArrici , OF COURT.-111 the course of the (NV . several calls !ravine heen made of suits, the ne eessatv Crrtur , -el in whirl) were absent •in' the ad • joiniog Court, 'lie Loan CHANCELLOR expres!ed: grey displeasure at 'the circumstance: It was not, he sAi,f; to, be endured, that one branch' of that Court should interrupt or strip the proceedings of . the other. " Could it," he asked,'" be supposed' that six or seven 1,1 the Counsel were then ink all` at once in the adjoining CoUrt iiehad intimated before, and he should then rcpcia - it : price - tor that in future he should adopt the ril;e %eryi properly set down in the• adjoining Court, of wit waiting for any Counsel'; but , that in case - the Advocates in the came Presented should 'riot he ready, he should immediately proceed to the next case on the payer. VIOE-CHA CELLOK% - i COURT, JVLY, 1. OPE RA- HoOS a. , --TA4I:OIr,V. WATERS. This Was a rtftteWed aptillention'by Sji'SAMS.YEL ROMILLy, inbchaff'Of 11r . . -1 1 a$71161', fur an Or'c(er that Mr. WA let s f) l y of . 34,16-11 , being the full anibtoft t2= crtie'of the ()pet ti . ttotke ptr6llklso:iv‘oney.. Tile order which the. (,oars bad iirevirrnstlyrwitre; was, saidrii'VLiiToiieil connsel; trofultilled by 11.1 r \Vatcrs, •`oti •tbe -plea' 6f ; Certain alleged iiicntn-, • brancys, td' which, li:o,v'ev:tr, no 58 .iitaciory bent tiiit:beet;:establi . sbeX, and which; - if aamit ted, 'wOittil l 'ph'iCe . 11r. liratets in a hitiiiition of partiel atly . anf:'ige above all the other claimants on the Opera Ilbose profit. ity. The Vice CHANCELLOR observed, that the ex ceptions had been allowed by the Nlaster, un ac 'count of their not _being cinisideted • b , atices. Sir ; . ..tNtltt , t, Homat-Y contenrk4 titer the Court to - call on Waters to pay the whole balance dne.•rtliardless of his 'being anenbitmbrancer. The•Vt6E-CHAt , ici.t.oit':said, that with that of - the - case, it":.would' he better to irring:•it hefetre'the LordChotneello'r,:Who 'was already ap prhed'of most of 'tire eirtirrnStances. He could only . make an order for' the ant - omit which had been distinctly Made out -to the Court, and to which Taylor' was 'indi.4putahly entitled. 'With tespeer to Hiirris's annuity; and other annuities, the real tpleAlOu':As , a - s, whether the Opera House ever receiyed'a 'preirts consideration for the;n. As the rasp stood at present, lie thonght it would be bet,te'r for Sir Samuelltomilly• to take the order fur rite. admitted Sum. Sire: agreed to the Vice-Chancellor's prop - o Sa l .; but • '•' tiAß : T'obVeted, anti insisted that, - accord ing tip'theprielciple - aoMirtett WM' reefi•goizeti by the . Cioint, the amoMit (If die ineuntbiantes ought. to be ennsidered in favimroF . Mr: Waters. The . ViCi?-CUANG:it_f.o'a tliett ordered that the case should stand over till ti3,mOrtow. , Sir S. Ro,infi:Oi . then moved, that Mr. Waters. 'be ordered insure, in the name of Mr: Tayl6r,, • to the' amount !'clie`ortierit'adlieen: .granted b'efore, nrion inquiry at 'the . Insurance . (Mice, it was fou n d 20,0001. only of the 24,0001. had been i'fisttred, though formerly, when Taylor'hait • been called on 'by . Waters to insure, the sum was no less than 40,0001. ' • This application, like We previous was or -. dered by the VICE-CIiANCELLOR to stand over till. to-morrow.. COURT. OF KING'S nF,Nui, JULY 1. FALSE IMPRISONNIENT, &c. • UOGERs versus For , GE,NT. . this was •an action against the eelendant, 'an Attorney of this Coort, for assaulting and falsely imprisoning the defendant. Ai r . Gums;Ey, with whom was Mr. CottlyN; . stated the case. ,The plaintiff was a respectable' silversmith and jeweller, residing in Pall-mall, and the defendant was an attorney, re-siding in .11ean , street, Suhu. Far several years the parties had b ee n on the must friendly terms, the defendant acting as the plaintiff's attorney ori ,many occa sions. In the month of March, 1817, the plaintiff had g i ven the d e fendant a warrant of attorney to eo n fe s si;Agment 15-11. Its. 3d.,being composed of a sum of 1001. supposed to have been lent by the latter to the former, and the remainder for law ex pences. This security, however, had been satisfied before the end of the year ; but notwithstanding - this circumstance:the defendant took out execn; lion against the plaintiff on the 243t1i of February last, and on the l3th of March. following he was - arrested on aCa sa for this, very debt, which had been previously satisfied, and carried to a lock-up house. It was (lieu vacation time, and the plain tiff being taken in execution of _course could.not give bail, but he sent a message to the defendant, requesting; that-he would give his,consent to his being :-discharged on paying the !minor levied into the hands of the Sheriff, to abide the event of an application .to the Court to set aside the warrant of attorney and execution. This was refused by the .defendant, upon which a sum rnon3 was . taken out to attend beffore Lord Ellenborongh (the only Judge then in town), ,to sliew cause why, the plaintiff should not he discharged out of custody upon lodging the money in the Sheriff's hands ; but this summons was not attended to,— A-accent - I summons for the •like purpose was also unattended to ; but upon a 'third summons the defendant did attend, and, af. ter resiiting the application as much as possible, " the Noble and Learned Judge ordered the ilaintiff • to be discharged upon the money being deposited. . with the Sheriff. Itt Easter Terns, an application , being made to the Court by the plaintiff to set aside the - warrant of attorney and execution, the utatter was refer'red•to the arbitation of Mr .11eader, the Barrister, who,after hearing all the parties,de.; • cided that there was no debt due from the plain - tiff to the • defendant, and consequently • ordered that the warrant of attorney and execution•should be set aside ; -and that. the money deposited with the Sheriff should be restored to the plaintiff, with costs, which was accordingly done. Under these cit cinnstanceg the present action was brought, and the Learned Counsel commented with consider able warmth upon the conduct of the defendant, • te-1,0, be cotaciakti, acted 'this occasion from the most malignant and improper motives. o prove the plaintiff's case the fallowing witnesses were called ,•, • . Mr. Alexander Kettle, a jeweller residing at No. 6, Pall Mall, stated that he had known the plaintiff, who was his 'next door neighbour, for tunny years;. The defendant was an attorney, residing in Dean-street, Soho. bad never seen hills but once in Isis life, and that was on the I Ith or 12tIrof March last, when be went to his office to pay two bills of exchange, for -6;111. of which he, witness, was ac ceptor, the plaintiff-the drawer, •and a person named Mor land .the payee.. Witness.told therlefeissiatipte had expected that the plaintiff , would have paid one of the bills, to which • the defendant replied, that be had not, and supposed woolti not. Witness said •to - Mr. NOM, " are you on: friendly: 'terms . with Mr. 'Rogers ?'Fhe defendant replied. ." nu -the reverse.. To convince von of that, see what I am • _going to do." He. pulled out, from among his papers, a pieee of parchnietit, which was , a writ, and said to witness,, perhaps you dun't understand. what this •it—it is an sac- -cution;./intl , metniott.this in confidence. I don't expect you; to statue it a'4aisi." The defendant then'said; that Mr, gers had used Mr. Morlaml very ill, for lie had served wills a copy of a writ lor.ol.—that Mr. Morland had heest a great friend to :lit. Rogers; and that, therefore, he thought such very nnhansisoine conduct. Upon the-sohject of the. hills,' he said to Witness, •" I would recommend you to pay them both, for if youth) , not do so, there will be tour actions brought upon them, and in the event of Mr. Rogers tailing (a circumstance which probably will be soon), the whole ex- =pence will fall upoti you as acceptor." , by Mr. Toernsc.—He. did not -consider himselfs.as,tenant .to Mr. Rogers. Ile liad, purchased the Irnsel of his lonise fromAtini, but paid the rent to the land rent, about 251. per atiiitnn, he Ohl to Nr:'Rdgeirs; hat' the principal rent, about. 2001. he paid.to ,:the'owner, of the: house: .He had at first coneeiged Mr. P o p... Jiji) t 4) be the holder : Of the bills, which'he had called to pay ; but fitafterwalals'un'tietstMol that they had hems discounted Pi tMa. Morytnd for Mr. Rngers, and that they had been pot lists:olr, Pepkio's hands to be sued upon. Witness had ob :tallied no time, as acceptor, to pay the hills, - beyond the time at Which they were dine, except one dav, as.tu line of them. George Duke,-from the Sheriff's Office,. i‘rodisced the serif in Grvan upon which the plaintiff had hero arrested. It was toed out on the 21;111 of February, but was nut executed until the" 15th of March. George Wilson, the Sheriff's Officer, proved that he ar rested the plaintiff in his.own house on the I tith of March, at the suit of the defendant, aild inr remained locked up at witness's" brother's hoost, No. 1, Warwick-court, Holborn, until - the 20th of March. • Mr. Henry Hilditch, Clerk to plaintiff's Attorney, proved the fact of three sutnmonse's having beeni taken ton h i -fo re 'Lard Ellenborongl6 two of whom were• unattended tc by the defendant, although' a polite: message had heen sent to -him, requesting Isis consent to the pkintirs.heing discharg ed, on lodging the mo o eyits the Sheriff's hands: Mr, Searle, plaintiff's attorney, proved the subsequent pro- j ' ceedings in the .King's Bench, and the reference uf the case to Mr. Reader. Witness's own costs, paid hint by the plaiss tiff. amounted to 441; Me, Edgard 'Roc, Clerk to Mr. Reader, proved .1 he execu timi-of the award' of the latter, by which he directed the war 4ant .of -.attorneynull execution to be laid aside, and the stun of 1711.44. Cd. the money &posited, and Sheriff's poundage, to be restored to, the plaintiff, This was the cii,e as proved for the plaintiff - . TorPi NG and Mr. •ESPINA'SSE Statltillted, that this, 'which- was an action of trespass, would not lie, lila - sonic!' as the act complained of was done in•ritirsuance of the Sheriff's .warrant. • Mr. justice ABBOTT overruled-:the objection, saying that the writ should have betty speCially pAeaticil for the de-fendapt could not avail himself of . It - under the general - issue, in justification. Tieipais'svo'uld lie trailer • the cireutostances of the case titticsS the justification.was pleaded. , 'Am NG then went to the Jury with such • nbservationS as the case could -afford iu favour of she - derendant; conjuring them to watch the evi dence ‘i , itir.lealottsy, anti above all not to suffer any' citiili6titie feeling to enter their minds in '! considering the , tviei.twn . 01 carriages. 1170, JuSticelAtißoTT: summed up the case with ' 'Suitable oliserv - atimis, -and cautioned the Jury • against 'giting an inteinperate•verdict: , The Jury found - for - the ptaintiff—Damages 8441. OF COMMON FLEAS, Ju NE 26. [As the following Law Report is interesting to the Public at large, particularly since insurance of property has becomp almost univei sal, 'ye regret that weliad not an earlier opportunity of insertitw, it. We gave a brief report of this case on the day after the Trial' took place.] Sittings after Term, before Mr. Justice PARK, and a Special Jury.- PALMER and ANOTHER V. BIGNOLD. Mr. Cahn'lieu. opened the pleadings. This was an action on a policy of insurance, brought by the plaintiffs; who are assignees of a bankrupt, named Waldegrave, against Mr. Bignold, the Se cretary of the Norwich Insurance Society. The declaration set forth, that Waldegrave, on the 14th of January, 1817, took out a policy of in surance, which was executed by three of the Directors of the Norwich Society; for 1,5001. on his household furniture, wearing apparel, hooks, plate, and on . the dwelling-house, 93,:Bishops gate-streer, and - the Bull Inn, adjoining thereto, and communitating therewith. Ott the 9tll of March, in the same year, part of the property sur'ed was' destroyed by fire, but the Norwich Society refuied 'to - make-good the loss. The de fendant set the policy and the regulations of the-Society in bar to the plaintiffs' claim—and he • also pleaded several pleas : Ist, That the said premises did contain a pipe-stove ; 2d, that no notice was given of there being a pipe-stove on the • premises ; 3d, than the dwelling-house was not in Waldegrave's occupation; 4th, that lie had no interest therein ; sth, that the premises were' but accurately described ; and, 6th, that the property insured was . not accurately desctibed. Mr. Serjeant Ltt NS said, that the plaintiffs sought to recover, by the present action, the amount of a - loss sustained by a fire which broke out in Mr. Waldegrave's premises, on the 9th of March, 1817; by which damage, to the amount of 9171 was occasioned. The present case could not occupy much' of 'their time, since ,there was not the smallest idea that the firchad been wilfully occasioned.. He thought the Secretary of the Norwich Society had set up the most ungracious defence , .possible—but, he hoped, the verdict of this day . would teach the Norwich Society to inti , tate the course pursued by the Insurance Compa nies-in London, who never refused to pay their 'policies, unless they had the most cogent* reasons :to suspect some unfair dealing. The Learned Serjeant then adverted to the different pleas set op by the'defendant, and obserVed, that he would disprove every one - of them by the most incom trovertible testimony. Samuel Waldegrave deposed that he bad kept the Bull Inn, Bishopsgate-street, for near twrlce years. He becAnie a bankrupt in Fehroaq 1817 . He occupied the front house, No. 93. liish°l ) " gate-street, which adjoined the inn, and commu nicatcdwith it. The furnit Ore, wearing-appar i l , books, plate, table and bed - linen, china and glass, L 1 co:111[111a to be tiffs pteperty - doven to tile / period of the fife. He knew the defendant, lolehold, who, about two years ago, when he was at Nor wich, pointed out to him the advantage he would derive by insuring in the Norwich So ciety, and wished him to effect a poliey there.— Witness, up to that time, had insured with the Sun Fire-office; When the defendant came to live in town, he again pressed witness to insure in the Norwich Society, observing - , that he could then have nn excuse for refusing. Witness silt!, when.his po licy with the Sun Fire-office had expired, at Chri - st- Inas, he would insure With the-Norwichtlociet y.— Atter Christmas, Bignoldecalled on,ltian several times. They talked together about the description of the pretnises- .An,idea,strock witness, that, as , there were two houses, there ought do be two. policies. This communicated. to the de fendant every time he saw him. Defendant said,. " lie knew the premises' weak-elle had hten up midi down the passage isevet al. times-eethe premises• were one and the same, having wregular nication—and he felt no lo:sip - mime with respect; to witness's effecting a policy," Witness weuti with him to his office., the. policy was latfected, and he paid defendant the premium._ Dektulantl said, the policy trinst-go - idown to -Norwich to hel signed by the bireetmsoltere. The policy neveri was returneil:to him---audy alter the file, rzhen-hel applied to have his loss made good, he was met; by a refusal. After,hia bankruptcy he contintted to reside at the,llttil inn. Oa the morning. of 9th of March, a lite broke oot'in his ,remises,' which consumed part of his furniture mid effects. The defendant came to his house in the fotenooo, of that day. The foreman of the Not:wielt Office' of came, by defeuda!Wa direction, to lock: up the damaged goods. There : never was a pipe slope on . 1115 remises. Cross-examined —Witness's insurance With the Son-office expired. at Christmas; 18.17, 'and he ef lee.ed the policy with t he Norwich Society in JAnualy, 1817. Ile insured with .the Sun for 1500/ odd, and to the same amouet with the Norwich. _Big nold knew the premises, as lie had often sle i tt at the Inn. Ile, never mentioned to witness that the pretniit's were not lain:city dcscrthirl. Witness never" iaw him h since fire. Ileeard that the policy; had been witlideawn 'on account of the imj)roper de. seription—but he did not krone the. fact himself. Ile sent his clerk several tunes for the policy.—; The answer he brought back was, that it hid not been retiniied from Norwich. This'nressagel.vai brought back at least three weeks or' a month after the policy was effected. - - There were at.the back of the - ifin a range DI stables and a cotree. room. There Were two coach-offices,.oue under the front• house,. and.one, at ,tie inn. .!J'o4 el these coach-offices belonged to hiru e •and one to a Mr. Marsh. He did-not kuow that in the e lacer there was a pipe -stove. heartlit . said, five or six years back, that there was—but he never ,saw it. There was no internal coittrunnicationfbe tween Marsh's' coach-Office and the li4in'ae kb witness occupied. Mr. Cockerill, an appraiser, stated, that tite da inatee. done bye, the fire - att..oimted to 7191. j6l._ exclosive. cif the %reit ing a pparel that wa s de.. atiiived; • Mr: Serjeant CLIPLIiir, for the defendant, said, those •-who knew the charter , of Mr..BigoOld wrintd•feel with him that he . was quite incapable. of defendiog this, or any other action, if lie:did not•believa. that be had 6 good and valid plea, which his duty directed' hifiiio plaCe• air] this re. cord. If, .therefore, the defence' which would this day be set up was . not.a g,ootl one.,. it arose entirely'from mistake and misapprehension, and: dill .lot proceed from any wish, out he part, of the Norwich Society,' to refuse that which was just and proper. Ai to wirhholeling the policy from WaldegraNe, the Jury would find that there was no impropriety in the act, as that that individual had no right whatever to complain. By-the tenni of the*policy, if a pipe-stogie were on the premises, it was emo6dered an additional risk, and a higher premium was olenianded, , It wav ad miffed; that an` agreement was entered into for effecting the' policy—anti, when it came' ,ti, from Norwich, a person from the 'Office; :wild W 95 conversant in these maters, toolt to Wahlegrave's house. On looking oVer'tht;' pre mises, he found that,they' were not ptlopt-Tiy`"de.: . scrihed—and, amongst other thine, he observed a pipe-stove in the coach-ilflice. Now, it w true, this . coach-ollice Was mit in -the ocenpktion of i Waldegrave, but still the' risk WaS precisely 4be. same. It was a risk which"required a Ilik r i,her4ate of premium than WaldegraVe had - -stipulated to pay. In consequence of thii'discoa;erss, the ptr' 7 son who had the policy took it.itwar.(Mr.-Wahle grave then being from homi.) 'to have - it altered; before it could 'beCome operatia4. :The. messen ger left word for Mr. Waldegtave to call at the office, 'but lie never did. The policy . remained there to the time of the fire, "w'es never con sidered operative—and the Soei . ety'did not think themselves accountable for 'any aarnageMr. degrave's premises bad sustained, as the neces saty alteration was not made in the policy. It was for the Jury to consider, whether, in truth, these premises, consisting of a hOuSe let out in lodgings, a range of stabling, and a coach-office, with a pipe -stove, were legally covered by the policy. The defendant should have been apprised of the pipe-stove—for, though it was not on Waldegra‘e's preinises, the risk was the same to the office. It was of no consequence, he con tended, whether the pipe;-stove was in the house occupied by Wahlegrave, or only in a room ad joining to or under it. Heathei being called--:lepoSed, that, about three weeks before the fire; he called .at Waldegrave's house with the poliey. He found the description in the Policy did 'not agree with the premises.. They were stated in ihepolicy to be' brick-built,: whereas they' were timbr.— [Here the FAIL:I/Was handed to the witness, who, to the great amusement of the Court, fo'und that there was no description whatever of the ma terials of which the premi.a.s were ccniposed.] Mr. Justice PARK said, the issues joined in this case wer of a peculiar nature. The ta'ain one was that - which alleged '' that there was a - pipe•stove on .the premises," for which the 'rtgulations of the Norwich' Satiety especially provided. That fact ,'linWever; did 'not appear..---;atid, ecti'if there bad been a pipe-stove there, it was very Trestiou-, ; A lt , i a - bit:, i l ,s the Ere Itad t i.'"'. l t 3 "": 7;0 11 Mtetit-er the iiffice:acted:correcTly in tak lii ° - i vantage. of the circumstance.: 1 ,, l‘i r • Serjeact COPLEY---` . ‘ It is all a nii sr '" ' ioi am ready Co' left the plifintitts take the whole." ,41 . 1 1 ' • - 11 : ' s• - Ar.. Justice. ~.ittir..-." ,t is. very unW°' 1 . t° th defence. Da you. mean to put the parties aOO l tro;ible of bringing another action for the 3113- of the ‘reariiii4 Ahnii : ell" . - Mt. Sedeent; corLi.v—fg No, my Loor ti ' " ,., o lli Mr. Justice i'fr.-ak.L.--`` You had better Wilke- business of it. - : „,p, th el) The, value of . the clothes destroyer) --- 5 :40 , proved to be about -1761.--:[fhis :aim the 09.11:g a ,Verdict tries could not: recoser, wolfing 'ol)P °re t i .,, b o t air' excepted ftiiia' the goods apPiit!.:Ale to t"" 1 merit oraliAiiiirlipt's'dtfhts'a .. • -•' 1:k Moult' , MI:. ..ei . leant CoPLEY how stated, that "" '•l'. . ..0 act cboselit - to•pay this siim.' • Mr. Jitficel l Ati,g,--‘ , Theo let .iherpitilliti t e 57 .. o h a % 1 - d .A ..., 'verdict 'fo'i: 7191. You will, rut -b i als pal'iie.i . t:o jile.e,iptnce of another -at-tiro], .; must Hievltably•he . the •c..19e.. ' Yai. tli • - ' . ,i , ,( , r s not pass.over to Waidegriive's asst 6" 0 4 ► tut' ydu .t:fuse'to•pay for •t, fresh actl 0 ti ° Ai; be'.l;!roti:th.t:,, ~- - : 1 . a ,,J A A li t ‘• • 5 1 4 7 ' 4 " • r • • ~ . . ,_,erjejult - ^'t -^" : I am ready to .- 11 iS ?ifir.'' '." ' "ftliibitig Tr ,e .111 4 As the weari,i..llll,:frit Mr:. jiktiO Pit:rzlk---=" 1 will! - say fl- ,bOO :plOilt . .ir;,. " *The're te a s no iftit!stion ethare ver - fi .itic'pUilt't.iii•s' 'claim. ''lhe case onglii 0 0 E 1 ' 1 ! tt ' Wan. byD'ught"ittto Court." • . OA ;Or. 4 ::ierkant CoPciiy- . —" Standing here as t o reptA , •s . entative'of 'this office, 1 cannot bitife r it be.pltioderetL"' • • , It! Alt... Justice PARK—" And I, sitting b e ti r " i• adatitit,ter the justice of the country . Will be t bs e j e cl,f :the' necessity of stim'uting up, it th ese v vatiitns are carried farther." • 101 l 11.1 r. Serjeant C —.' OPLEY" lam ready Vireo' the point to the decision of any gentleman °' pet cut skill." . A;ct O f The Jury linrnediately returned tt vv e— 40i. the plliwtiffS—Darnages, 7191. 165..--Coitso • INTELI.IO44',NCE , • • ; • .t-‘, ; • , Bow-STRE P. T —Vcs t cr ay If e ar t l iie' •works a 'fcrry:boat over the l'i k aincs, fr" ril 'had' worth totbeSurrey.sh ore, was chat ,, ed tog.. Mr. tic:kJ:And Who resides lt '1)0 e 'i4 ocighb . 9n`rhoo4. fysppc .. ar,ed,(hatOn. die v t e .. „, at of the!'1,011; 41!. the : Pr tor fl e nriNoner : to, letff him over tbeth:iises, l ager refirsyil:to,.,tl9,:o.lerl a, deal Of 'll'it;""lt!aPY,FQYocatitlii; anti kn'ockerl,l' iln k - iii;' ' e ti land fae; . .-w as riown struck. hirn (} hirn several times with so violen ce , ; - 1 head, that imjiress,irryi pi 'the nails'ia was risible for, eye etit .crperi, his liead. ..mr. Ao,drecss, tended hint was not 'able to pronounce 1 .' 7 -0 19 of danger till 'fliesrl4y. The . riefetice , et 14' re ; ik ' fa gY lll . intnxication ;" but I\ll% I-IPCF.s, the 'O,-r i f ir i , thattWould not and he silo"' g, , f)(,1 hail for his Iteinotts offe nce ' '14 % coninted, hint for want'of it. A tri . Qt.:TEF:NT-satfliotg.—Yesterday, Michael' vas finaily.examined on charges of istoiogS;- I 11. and 51; notes, pur porting to be the ae t i e r de . ""' hank (called the Exeter, Somerset, aroll - ; ' i ti 4 ll bank) which ittiled som e . years ago. A gr e '',:ei her of tradesmen, who hail - received ( 1)-e II I Payment, appeared at- , :aintzt tbe prisonerf.:l9: passing them off had repre3ented longing to Sir Francis 13urdetr's Coan" f :, Among others the landlord of the lie d , 1 .) ;;:; e , l ' i r Prince'S-street, where a committee is 1 41 ' I. that on 'Tuesday tree k, the prisoner V int ; . 10 °4 boost . ; said he wanted to give 111001'! i t " 1' fur • of iiinernnt musicians, and asked ChdOgeps. five pound note for the porpos , e. The 'c itn. seeing that the note .he produced vi' 49 ' l : e Li • ° I II noir, at first hesitated in giving him elo'e o :rtg l o ; on considering it was election time, b e 11 ` . trl‘ all ‘vtis and gave him fi ve poond b-3 f 11 : $ 'England notes. 'lke Magistrate informed the prisoner 1-1.%1)." offence with• which he was char red veoAtfrAci:l and , that it be found two sureties in a te e, attic hiltts: if in . 2001 for each case, an ti hoot s'-trotice, would be accepted e fault thereof, he Inuit he committed. vdfr e sorter bowed, but made 110 reply, n ly, a" b "73' fuily.cntmnit.ted. h GO4BE:TH-STREET.—.YCSterday JOSia- 4 st )Si, gale was , hronglit up in custody, charge d l in u f 1 0° f ci( , )1) ortobbing the Braintree stage- co cd ,que llC. , , panty tit the amount of 4,0001. In enn s : l ,er ti of. the several witnesses not attendiiig soner was discharged. ql 1;11 For fourteen dap herrings h av e apcle °llD E, oar coast, but not until 'liteplay nigbt /Ifri iir or? they caught in great quantities. 0 1 + th i h d :►fai w i f night they have been\formil i n grea ter a-uoicept and yesterday and to•day they have bee° 5 r °lll Kilmarnock and Glasgow, and sold in ° h u t Tie r !, market . at a peony each. The fish ""il 1 11; last season %sere of a very superior siz e f ati co d fi rl uf, l t i i ty, and those which have been Ilith er-° .- - (' season to be in no . way inferior' .Journal ). of r. , ...........=.....ammegm.....u55may0mear." ammema...........--.......,.....„....------ ----.-- f .fidl MT Ii S . • I the '' • , On Sunday last, at Governinent-Itiase, P ea " 15 ,4 Ca6t a a,i T ti n E es ci d ar a a y rd („ L ei l l o i y " d g. , a ll t . i ti ii;l o l f ,asesr: avid i Id' ,beir.do.f:ab. the Lady of Willi am a m! h o u se I`- f ,nuan, i-,sq• 0 -- ' --- fel e ! MARRIED. 5 , 1 03re.' ab et' Yesterday, at St. GeorgZs Church, Flannver. t SI II eV ° Langford Brooke, Esq. of Mere Hall, Chekshirc,,l). C.lOO Sophia Rowley, ehkst d iii.lter of Admiral 4144' Rowley. The bride was ' it. " ll away . by W S 1143 the Dithe of Gloucester. g ' , . 010 1 '4 ace, .I DIED. t o t-1er r ,,,,0 r Qu the 26th oh., at his house. on Wa' °- aia l'" • ,e 4 Coloncl James Plainer, of the Hon. East In"' . c ifv• seri ice. 'Bengal Establishment. r . jorif ° , I C IP S ; On Monday, the iciliick“oltisil-Oilier- t eiro, - ~' shire, in the 77th yeae of his age, Sir George o b , Jtev,, . a General in the 4-I.rilay, aura ( . ; i 4„,),1 of th e 4 /1,4 li., 9 6P).. of Foot. • p,o. I kr. LONDON: Printed hyJ. D. CARS - FA IRS, jjsh 1.00.7r51 Ormond-street, lot-en-square; . a t Or • ScILIPPS, of N 0. :,. South Xioltoil" s - t r e 'tLen t9) °Aim, No. 112; Strand ; where :6 1 " 1: ,,j, Lettets, &v. (post-paiii) ulust fie ' ~. ~~~, S„